Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:55:53AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Andrew Suffield writes:
> >
> > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:36:30PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > > Requiring layered formats for
> > > > source is also going to result in PNGs being non-free in many cases.
> > >
> > > This sort of mindless sophistry accomplishes nothing. Requiring source
> > > does not make programs non-free. Failing to provide source is what
> > > makes programs non-free. The contents of the Debian archive is not
> > > non-free just because we require source.
> >
> > Who is being a mindless sophist?
>
> People who scream every time we find a package with missing source,
> because obviously it's impossible that any such package could ever be
> distributed with source, and so by finding them we're making them
> non-free.
That would be an interesting argument if there were no reasonable
basis to disagree about what "source code" means in the context of a
JPEG. The point of my mail was that there often is no clear (or
usable or freely manipulable; the relevant metric may vary) "source
code" version of a lossily compressed image.
> It gets really tiresome. Like the people who blame bug reporters, as
> if the bug didn't exist before it was reported.
Reporting something as an RC bug when others think it is a wishlist
item is objectionable.
> > Take, for example,
> > /usr/share/doc/doc-iana/cctld/jp/sakamoto-sig.jpg from doc-iana,
> > currently in main. It is a JPEG of a signature. We cannot distribute
> > Sakamoto-san. The image was produced in Photoshop, which means there
> > may not be a precursor file that is freely manipulable. What is
> > source?
>
> <snip rest of examples>
>
> Wrong part of the thread, we've been here already. This is not
> directly relevant.
What part of requiring layered formats for images makes it irrelevant
that there is no layered format "source" for certain images?
> > > In most cases, requiring layered formats for source is going to result
> > > in getting layered formats for source. It is obviously the correct
> > > thing to be distributing; upstreams who have it but don't distribute
> > > it probably just didn't think of it.
> >
> > In a significant number of cases, requiring layered formats for source
> > will mean that DDs must create DFSG-sanitized "orig" tarballs by
> > removing images that upstream distributes.
>
> Or by adding images that upstream did not distribute. You're doing it
> as well. "Delete it" is *not* the only possible answer to a buggy
> package. Stop pretending that it is.
"Delete it" *is* the only option for DFSG-incompatible files, although
a patch may later substitute a file that satisfies your whims.
If your interpretation is taken, the package maintainer would have to
create a new version of the source tarball. This happens with many
source packages already; XFree86, Linux and some GFDL-documented
packages are examples. If an upstream-distributed file fails DFSG
tests -- for being source code or for freedom to modify -- it must be
excised from the orig tarball that becomes part of Debian.
Michael Poole
Reply to: